A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of Languages c8.44

c8.44

Moreover, in changing *einḍ* into *eiñj*, there is a further change of the vowel from *ei* to *a*, in consequence of which *eiñj* becomes *añj*. This change almost always takes place in Malayâḷam, and also in the pronunciation of the mass of the people in Tamil. Thus, *pareinḍu*, Tam. having spoken, becomes in Malayâḷam *paraññu*; and in this instance we see illustrated the change both of *ei* into *a*, and of *nḍ* into *ñ*; consequently the perfect regularity of the change of *einḍ-u*, five, into *añj-u*, is established. Where the Malayâḷam does not change *nḍ* into *ñj*, it changes it into *nn*—e.g., *naḍanḍu*, Tam. having walked, is in Malayâḷam naḍannu. This illustrates the process by which eind-u became ein-u in Tuḷu, and ên-u in the Telugu compound padi(h)ên-u, fifteen. It is thus evident that the apparent resemblance of the Dravidian añju to the Sanskrit pañchan is illusory. It disappears on examination, and the slight resemblance which does exist is found to arise from the operation of Dravidian principles of sound. Consequently ei or ê must be regarded as the sole representative of the Dravidian numeral, and with this it is evident that neither pañchan, nor any other Indo-European form has any analogy whatever. The Sanskrit pañcha is used in the Dravidian languages in Sanskrit compounds, but it is never confounded with eindu or añju by native scholars.